I'm sure people would around here would shit a brick if that same picture were recreated with the new Iraqi leader alongside General Casey or L. Paul Bremer.

But like Germany, MacArthur's implementation of Marshall's plan for the occupation and democratization of Japan has also turned out fairly well. Japan also had substantial cultural obstacles to overcome, as will Iraq. This by no means implies that this will turn out swimmingly, but it doesn't mean that just because you voted for Kerry or Nader that Bush can't succeed at any policy maneuver.

I think what most of us are concerened about is whether Iraq's people will have genuine control of their oil and whether the United States will actually pull out of the country (military bases and all) at some point. I mean, some countries are called "Democratic People's Republic of __________," but we know what really happens behind the scenes. Remember, the people in Washington right now were the biggest defenders and supporters of Saddam during his worst crimes, so they better do something for these people after supporting one of the worst men in history and blowing up the country twice in less than a few decades. If one wonders why some people are extremely cynical over this whole process, including me, that is why. I'm not joking when I say that we have yet to see this group do much good for poor and oppressed people around the world, and unfortunately violence seems to be their solution to any "problem" outside America.

Bush can succeed with his policies. However, it is the policies he stands for that I feel are a menace to the country and the world itself. Sure, he can succeed in blowing up Iraq, removing Saddam and setting up corporations to exploit all of the oil, but that doesn't mean I approve of the policies. I really do read up on the candidates for each election, and honestly, I just don't like anything Bush proposes. On the opposite end of the spectrum you can find Nader, who I agree with on almost everything, but Kerry gave me the opportunity to vote for a moderate who could potentially be influenced by social movements. I think most people in America are moderates, but Bush has somehow convinced half of all registered voters that he a moderate himself, which is easy to do considering how brilliant his marketing team is.

By the way, I thought it was very interesting how virtually every third party, left or right-wing, was against the war.

Personally, my view point is anti-blowing people up and pro-education. I am not in favor of this war not on the basis of a lack of WMD, but because you just don't stick your nose in a 3000 year old war with five sides to it. Besides, when do you win?

I don't think we realize how we are viewed in other parts of the world, nor do I believe that many of the people around the world necessarily realize that there is a healthy segment of the American people, like myself, who would like to see them achieve a quality of life comparable to our own.

Eisenhower, a career soldier, supported this position amidst the creeping Soviet influence in Eastern Europe and around the world. He knew that the Soviets were telling them of our evils just as we were telling our own people of the evils of communism. He advocated educating these people, winning their hearts and minds with our warmth and our democratic principles. Bombs weren't going to change the minds of these people.

The thing is, there is probably a significant overlap of Americans who wish the world could see that we ain't so bad and those of us who are totally unwilling to sacrifice to see this happen.

Educating people includes telling Big Sugar to get their goddamn nose out of CAFTA and allow the poorer Dominican farmers to benefit and learn how to succeed in a freer market.

It also includes not trying to stand in the way of technological and medical jobs that can be put to use in the growing economies like India or China. Yeah, outsourcing.

Education can be as simple as showing the people of Sri Lanka, Thailand and Islamist-peppered Indonesia that we Americans do care about their well-being.

This is the way to change minds, but Republicans try to bomb people into submission while Democrats are unlikely to piss off the leadership of the labor unions.